No, infact it’s also teh 170lm/watt model, pulled right from the Facebook page of Cree.
Nope, it only takes a couple of weeks… (at least the last time I did it).
I stand corrected
I read a study a couple of years ago that concluded that a lot of the efficiency gains in adopting new forms of lighting are negated by the increased use of lighting that those gains allow. In other words, more efficient lights = more lights, not less electricity use. You only have to look at the massive number of lighting fixtures (especially directional ones, such as spot bulbs) incorporated into new houses.
FCC Certification for a product like this could be done in an afternoon if a company had the need and the cash for it. It’s actually a pretty simple test (especially for something like a light-bulb that doesn’t intentionally transmit RF) - it’s just about getting time in a facility that can certify to FCC Specifications.
I just got an FCC Cert in two days about a month ago on a product that one of our customers was very late in delivering to the end-user. It wasn’t cheap, but I sent samples to the FCC Test Lab Monday morning and had a cert on my desk Tuesday Afternoon.
PPtk
Sorry, but it’s utter crap… An LED bulb is typically 5-6 times more efficient than a halogen. You are not going to turn on 5-6 times as many of them. I am VERY familiar with lighting in modern homes. See my post: My adventures in LED home lighting
My house has over 300 bulbs (all LED now). I do leave on 4 of them (8 watts, dimmed down to around 3 watts) 24-7 as night lights and for maneuvering around when entering the hose. It is actually more efficient than putting them on timers. If anything, I have less bulbs on now than when I was using halogens.
While that may be your experience, the OP’s point is also valid, there have been studies done saying that lighting is being used in new ways and in areas never thought of before. Will it average out to the same amount of electrical usage, maybe not, but light is being used in more places. Also, this may not aplly to a home environment as much as commercial, idustrial etc.
Bose hit it on the head - your personal experience may be the opposite and I’m not disputing that, but overall, at a population level, efficiency gains typically lead to doing more (moving more mass faster for cars, more intensively and continuously lit spaces for lights). One could even suggest, and I’m not trying to be argumentative honest, that the fact that you have 300 light bulbs in your house is anecdotal evidence for what I’m saying 
Still, it’s an area under considerable debate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect\_(conservation)
and I found 149 papers from a quick search “energy efficiency rebound effect” on Web of Knowledge (Pubmed should net similar results). Most are about its effect on transport (ie. more efficient cars = longer or more journeys), but there’s some on household efficiency. The effect on household efficiency gains has been calculated from 30-60% and I think that’s when the data is normalised for dwelling size. You could easily see how increases in dwelling size (McMansions etc) and their commensurate increase in heating/cooling/lighting costs can easily wipe out any reductions in energy use that efficiency gains offer.
So, I’d posit that it’s not “utter crap” 
This is very believable because of just one situation. When someone gets a raise at their job, what do they do typically? SPEND IT! Most people who get raises always seem to go out to dinner with their loved ones or spend it on a hobby, maybe save a little bit of it. And celebrities with millions don’t get a 2000 sq. ft. regular house, like you said they build mansions. Now, this spending has a very different reason for happening that just taking of higher efficiencies. But it’s still pretty understandable. Humans will always exploit things, from oil to water, all the way to their own kind.
But in places like walmart, or similar stores, lighting pretty much stays the same. Right now, they have flourescent lighting at all those stores, but you wouldn’t need more light, it’s already as bright as daylight. So when they switch over the LED lighting in maybe 3-5 years (when it’s cheaper), they’ll be using alot less electricity for the same amount of light.
Though I don’t care much about cars being a little less “efficient”, being that they produce many times less gases. It’s a more clean burn, only problem is the fact that all the safety equipment is heavy.
And as lighting gets more efficient, hydro rates will go up so they keep their revenue levels…
|(
I’ve read about this effect as well, but couldn’t remember what it was called, and both sides are correct, for a business like walmart their goal is to keep costs as low as they can, so i doubt there would be more usage if they gain efficiency. Individual people work differently, if what you have is enough, you won’t use more, my 2 x 23W CFLs light this room perfectly fine, so i i had LED replacements i wouldn’t use anything brighter. My A/C cools to 24ºC, if it became twice as efficient, i would keep at at the same temperature. But if my car became twice as fuel efficient, i could afford more discretionary travel assuming i had the inclination or time, Higher lumen output LEDs lead me to buy them with their higher power output needing lithium batteries that were unnecessary when i used 2AA batteries for an XP-E light. If the cost of food halves, i may eat a bit more fancy then now.
Also it comes down to people (above poverty level) who live paycheck to paycheck or who save some of their income. Those who are paycheck to paycheck live to the limit of their environment, aka income, so any savings will lead to more consumption in whatever form comes naturally to them. Those who look for savings will add the unspent income to their savings account (or investments).
The Cree site shows off a business that switched from fluorescent bulbs to LED. I don’t remember them talking about lower power usage at all, but they mentioned the savings from less maintenance many times.
From what I’ve seen, most homes could benefit from a LOT more lighting. Some department stores would benefit from greater lighting too. I’ve seen plenty of offices that could also use more lighting. So I’m on the side that says people will take advantage of the greater efficiency by increasing lighting.
On a personal note, I’ve installed a few dual bulb adapters at home to increase lighting. CFL’s have been used for years. There are a couple spots where LED bulbs might work better, but that’s only because they should be more durable, for example outdoor and a certain lamp that keeps getting knocked over.
Yes, if you have a product only 1 of 10 people can afford, then make efficiency gains to gain 9/10 people usage… Yes then more energy will be used. But nearly all americans use lighting and cars, now. Thus you will see at least a lesser savings of overall usage.
Moreover, what is wrong with the poor getting some light out of the 1 watt of energy they can afford? Or the middle class getting a cure for the winter blues on the 60 watts they wish to pay out?
My rich customers usually do all they can to burn as many inefficient incans they can illegally get ahold of—just to prove their worth. This will change, but their super bright levels of light will not likely go up.